From: | "Theodore J. Henry" <thenry@umabnet.ab.umd.edu> |
Date: | 22 Sep 1997 11:12:19 |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | Fort Ord RAB and NARAB |
To Career/Pro People: I wanted to comment on a few observations. First, and foremost, I think it is important to acknowledge the openness by Career/Pro for posting statements and annoucements by various people, even if these postings are negative about their work. I have met alot of people in my few years in this business and there are military, NGOs and regular citizens who would not have such character. I have met and worked with Aimee and Lenny numerous times and strongly believe they are an important force in community efforts. They work with many different groups and this is a critical attribute. Second, I think it is important to list the different concepts floating about. There is 1) Career/Pros current work - I think the listserver which allows us to speak to each other and the regional Workshops speak for themselves. 2) There is the National RAB Caucus that Arc is working on - RABs need to talk and learn from each other and clearly this is worth while. 3) There was the National Association of RABs (NARAB) which I started to type about but the Caucus appears to be the same concept so hopefully Arc will be opening this up more by participating on this listserver more in the future. 4) Is my vision of a National RAB Board ( what we can call the NRB) which I believe is still valid and needs to exist to help in the effort to get RABs the help they need. Lets not mix up these issues, they are all needed (I believe) and all have a place. And if they are developed openly, will flow together well in the future. Third, no matter what the issue, I hold it as a strong truth that the formation or direction must be open to all who want input, if it is to serve the needs of the people these concepts are trying to help. And simply put, I will not participate in anything that is not open to suggestions (positive and negative) because this would be no different than working with some of the military project managers I have worked with. And so this is not taken as extreme, I acknowledge that I have found people with open minds in the military as well. Fourth, a note in response to Polly's comments. I think the RAB Caucus or the RAB Board concept of mine could be open to governing bodies - they are not excluded - how they could participate should be discussed in an open forum as these things move forward. Yet, I must admit from my experience, I am not sure how much they want to be involved in the workings of such a concept. Depending on the entity, they are often too busy, or from this state, truly not interested in community participation. In Maryland, it is common knowledge, that MDE is on the RAB by legal requirement, not because they want or think they should be, and this has shown in their lack of interest in hurdles the community has faced. Yet, as with the different community concepts listed above, MDE serves a (different but needed role in the clean-up of APG just as the TAG Group, EPA and the Installation Restoration Program do. The point being is that these community organizing groups can exist without other bodies actively participating, and instead work with these other bodies as required. I tend to think that alot of your elected individuals and state and county employees will prefer such a set up, meaning that they want the community to go and do their own work and come back when it is organized and ready for discussion - if you know what I mean. I dont see these concepts becoming exclusionary, if they do people need to not participate in them so they will disintegrate. We must have working relationships with EPA, DOD etc. Yet, on the other hand, these groups do not have to participate for RABs to learn from each other, or for a helping body to apply scientific and political pressure to get a RAB treated more fairly during the process. Enough for now. Sincerely Ted Henry | |
Prev by Date: Info Request: DU & U.S./European trng. in Germany Next by Date: Response to NARAB--corrected | |
Prev by Thread: Info Request: DU & U.S./European trng. in Germany Next by Thread: Response to NARAB--corrected |